AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Initially, employee has filed this petition. During the
pendency of the petition, he died. His legal heirs are
brought on record.
The employee was appointed as Assistant Teacher.
He was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable
under Section 325 of IPC and convicted by the trial Court.
The trial Court awarded a sentence of RI two years with
fine of Rs.100/-. He was released from jail after
undergoing the sentence on 04.07.1985. After being
released from the jail, because his appeal upto Supreme
Court was dismissed, he submitted an application before
the District Education Officer to the effect that he be
reinstated in service because he had no means of
livelihood and the offence for which he was convicted was
not amounting to moral turpitude. The District Education
Officer vide order dated 17.02.1986 terminated the
services of the employee. Against the aforesaid order, the
employee submitted representation before the Joint
Director of Education and other authorities. He also
submitted application to Deputy Director of Education,
Sidhi.
The Deputy Director of Education, Sidhi vide order
dated 28.04.1995 accepted the representation of the
employee and set aside the order of termination passed by
the District Education Officer and ordered that the
employee be reinstated in service from the date of his
presence. The employee was not given the benefit of post
services, hence, again he submitted representations and
those representations were rejected. Finally, his
representation was rejected by the Director Public
Instructions and the same was communicated to the
employee vide order dated 19.04.1997. It is mentioned in
the order that the employee was convicted for commission
of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and his
conviction was upheld upto Supreme Court, hence, he is
not eligible to count his post services i.e. prior to
28.04.1995.
The employee filed this petition before this Court for
grant of benefit of post services.
It is pleaded in the petition that another employee
namely Ramfal Tiwari was given the same benefit and the
employee was not convicted for an offence which
involved moral turpitude, hence, his post services has to
be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits including
pension.
It is a fact that the employee was retired from
service after attaining the age of superannuation and he
was died during the pendency of this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the services of the employee were terminated without
giving any opportunity of hearing. He was not convicted
for an offence which involves moral turpitude. Hence,
after his reinstatement, he is eligible to receive the benefit
of post services.
I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is an admitted
that the employee was convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. His
conviction was upheld upto the Supreme Court. His
services were terminated, thereafter, treating a special
case, the Deputy Director of Education accepted the
representation of the employee with a condition that his
services would be counted from the date of his presence.
He accepted the condition. The employee was reinstated in
service by the same authority. Although, in my opinion,
the Deputy Director of Education was not competent to
order reinstatement and change the order of termination
from service, which was passed by the officer of the same
cadre and post, however, he was reinstated in service and
the benefit was accorded to the employee, hence, he
cannot claim equal treatment at par with another
employee.
In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, in my
opinion, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is
hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.